DOCUMENT RESUME ED 337 378 SO 021 325 AUTHOR Adler, Emily Stier TITLE A Proposal for a CDurseen the Sociology of Work and the Family. Working Paper No. 133. INSTITUTION Wellesley Coll., Mass. Center forResearch on Women. SPONS AGENCY Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, NewYork, N.Y. PUB DATE 84 NOTE 12p. AVAILABLE FROMWellesley College, Center forResearch on Women, Wellesley, MA 02181 ($4.00, pluspostage). PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC NotAvailable from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Course Descriptions; CourseOrganization; *Curriculum Development;Employment; Family (Sociological Unit); *Feminism;Higher Education; Intellectual Disciplines; *Sociology IDENTIFIERS *Sociology of the Family;*Sociology of Work ABSTRACT The task of transforming theundergraduate curriculum to reflect feminist concerns should involve a considerationof the way existing curricula are structured.This paper pursues the question of structure anlconsiders two existing andseparate courses: the sociology of work (oroccupational sociology) and the sociology of the family. Alternativeways of structuring these courses are discussed, includingone that would focus on the two spheres of life (work and family)together ani the design ofa course that has as its core the area where the spheres overlap. Anoutline for a course on work and families is presented and includeslists of readings for several differenttopics within the largerconcepts. (DB) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRSarq the best that can be made * * from the original document. * **********************************-************************************ U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Otth e 01 EtluLaborat Reseauch and tmolevement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IFRICI is dot ument hasbene repuldur ad as 11?1(44reothve0 1,0M Inn polsoll ,n 0,gant}tihon ,u.gmatmg .1 IINnor changes ha,e been made to ,mtRove nproducl,on qualay -- -- -- Points 01,ne*. 01 Cloovon y 5. cited ,ollusdocu ment do not net estatoy rewosent official OE RI Poshon n DON. y -PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL INMICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY eAnt tcf__ t> TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)" The task of transforming the sociologycurriculum can only be accom-. plished if in addition to includingnew knowledge and perspectives, exist- ing information and perspectivesare critically evaluated as well. One aspect of the existing curriculum that meritsscrutiny is the way in which the information covered in theundergraduate curriculum is divided into various courses. It is important for feminist scholarsto consider the consequences of the ways the existing curriculumsare structured. Further- more, we will need to examine alternative ways of structuringcourses so that they will adequately reflect theexperiences, perspectives and priori- ties of a population that is diverse interms of gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, age andso on. Focusing on course organization and struc- ture can lead one to ask a variety of questions. One could, for example, ask what the implications of teachingseparate courses in theory and re- search are. One could speculate on howa course on the sociology of health would compare to the more frequentlyencountered course in medical sociology. One could think about teachinga course on race and class rather than the more traditional courses -- one on "minority groups" andanother on "social stratification". This paper pursues one such question ofstructure, and considers two existing and separate courses: the sociology of work (or occupationalsoc- iology) and the sociology of the family. The organization of courses in sociology departzentsfollow closely the academic specialties that have evolvedin the field. It is therefore underatandable that two separatecourses exist, one ot. work and one on families, just like the dozenor so other separate courst:v on social groups or instikxtions (i.e., the sociology of education, politicalsociology, soc- iology of religion). In addition, the purpose of studying eachinstitution and group separatelymay be to make it possible for students to examine 3 I. I -2- each one in a ralative isolation so that eachone can be better understood, albeit ina simplified way. One could argue that there is another underlying reason for separating the subjectmatter of work from that of families in theundergraduate curriculum. It may be that while one course (on work and occupations)focuses on what is commonly consideredthe "top" or important sphere, the other (onfamilies) focuses on one that is seen as much lessimportant. As Peggy McIntosh has arguedoour societyas a whole has traditionally defined the world as apyra- mid with the top consisting of the "publicinstitutional life of nations, of governmentsof militia, universities, churches and L.orporations"(1983, p. 5). "We are taught that civilization has a cleartop and a clear bottom. The liberal arts curriculum has been particularlyconcerned with passingon to students the image of what the 'top' has been" (McIntosh1983, p. 5). The world of paid work and the study ofoccupations, especially those de- fined as having great prestige, are clearlyon the peaks and pinnacles. The world of the home and family is well belowthem. A sociology that does not challenge this world view and its prioritieswill be most comfortabl. drawing a line between the two social realitiesand studying work and family as distinct entities rather than focusing on thesimilarities bctween the spheres and theirinterconnections. In addition to fostering the separate study of theseOW wor'dt., the pyramidal shape of patriarchalculture explains why,currently, oc- cupational sociology is seen as a fairly prestigiousspecialty within the discipline and why familysociology is near thevery bottom of the status hierarchy. Understanding the pyramidalsocial construct that,as McIntosh argues, influences our institutions, our behavior andour psyches (1983, p. 5) can also explain some of the omissions the concent ofthe courses in both og these areasas they have traditionally been taught. Courses in the sociology -3- of work, for example, have rarely paid attentionto unpaid work or to "emotion work". In addition, muchmore of the research in the field has been on the "professions" rather than the "semi-professions",or on blue or pink collar jobs. Courses on the family,on the other hand, have tra- ditionally focused on the emotional relationships betweenmer.bers in a way that obscures the materialrelationships that exist withinthe unit and that are connected to social structures outside of it. Furthermore, the traditional value system makeait more understandable whymore time is usually spent in family couizets in analyzing the way the world ofpaid work effe.:ts families thanis spent in occupational sociologycourses focusing on the influence of families. Dividing the study of two of the most central spheres of sociallife into rfo separate courses, one on work and one on the family,follows and reinforces our conceptualization of the differentness anddistinction between these two aspects of life. A feminist "re-vision" of thesetwo courses would not only challenge the paradigms used, re-evaluatethe concepts pre- sented, consider the different research methodologies and callfor differ- ent pedagogy in teaching about families and work, it would searchfor an al- ternative organization ofcourse structure. A possible structuralalternative is implicit ina course described by Nona Glazer (1983). Her semi-traditionalcourse on Social Institutions: Focus on Unpaid Work allowsone to bring the two spheres together. By using the uniaid/paid dimension as the organizing principal of thecourse, one can see the nature and extent of work in a variety of social settings,including the home. In her transformed course on social relations, A PoliticalEconomy Perspective on UnpAid Work,sit^ presents an integrated view of thesocial world d-awing on both feministand marxian analyses toconstruct her framework. -4- Again one can consider the two spheres of life as they both are played out within an political/economic structure.Although Glazer does discuss types . of work, including paid work, the emphasis in this course in omunpaid work. Another approach would be to focus on the two spheres of life together and to design a course that has as its core the area of overlap visualized as foll.ms: Traditional Courses Sociology of Work and Occupations ..............0///// Transformed Course. A course on Work and Families (ar Families and Work ) would, for example, al- low the examination of both wage earning and unpaid work and an analysis of the emotional connections in both public and private spheres. Further- more, balanced perspectives of both families and economic concerns can pro- viee students with some core concepts and frameworks with which to build upou in later coursework. A course outline for an integrated course on work and families follows. References: Nona Glazer "What Does It Mean To Integrate? Issues For Feminist Theory?" distributed at Wellesley Mellon Seminar, November, 1983. -5-- Peggy McIntosh."Interactive Phases of CurricularRe-Vision A Feminist Per- spective", Wellesley College Center for Researchon Women (Working Paper No. 124), 1983. Course Outline Work and Families I. k-fining The Concepts This introduction to theconcepts of "work" and "family" focuseson the way the terms have beendefined, theconsequences of those def- initions and alternativeconcepts and formulations. Possible course readings/teacherpreparation